Balance between copyright holders' benefits and public interests

In order to protect own copyrighted works, copyright holders, such as motion picture companies, TV companies oblige to put their tremendous resources, human resources and money, in monitoring whether there are their copyrighted works on video hosting services and to notify them of copyright infringement. But, once the copyrighted materials are removed from the web site, substantively same materials will be posted soon. Nowadays, copyright owners have to pay attention to this surveillance more and more. Moreover, there are many video hosting services not only YouTube but also Dailymotion, Veoh and so on.
So, if Viacom wins this law suit, that is not fundamental solution for this problem. I feel the current U.S. Copyright Act section 512 charges too much burden on a copyright holder. Personally, I think this article should be amended for a copyright holder. Otherwise, the small companies and individual creators can not afford the cost of observation on video hosting services and this disturbs creation of a new art.
However, if a new article protects copyright owners’ benefits too strictly, it also blocks cultural promotion which the Constitution aims for. It's difficult how a new article balances between copyright owners' benefits and public interests.